As this question rised up from another topic I will make quotes on relevant comments there:
Yes, and more so, there was:Zeraim wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 11:41 pm I think part of the Theosophists' critique on mediumism was somehow accurate just because of the spiritist movements of the time. People were trying to find meaning and deeper knowledge from the ghosts. For that part I can agree to the critique. It would be quite the same, as we would pick random people from the streets and ask them how we should live and ask them what we should do to find enlightenment. And would you ask your father, mother or grandparents these things? Were they somehow so wise during time they were with us?
1. A burning need in the seance culture to find something of the hidden, which is a fruitful ground for future occult students.
2. Mediumism offered a clear example of one of the most crucial snares guarding the gates of occult strive, where in reaching in to the hidden and the unconsciousness one easily falls completely in to individual irresponsiblity by the lack of Will of the individual Self. This was a great opportunity to showcase how one could actually reach to the occult – the hidden world – with balance of the unconscious and the conscious, and not only avoiding losing the Self, but preparing one’s individuality in to the brilliance of an Adept.
3. The forementioned spearhead of the critique, questioning the ethics of getting karmic particles (skandhas) mixed, challenged those willing to take up these ethical ponderings in order to seek occult adepthood. Time was ripe.
This is quite a complex question. Some portions of it I already answered in the above numbered answers, some of it I answered in the previous topic but let's go into this in a bit more specific way under the perspective of this topic. First, yes I have used the term 'mediumism' in the sense of possession-like states. We can investigate here whether or not the critique reaches to less macabre spectrum of mediumism.Istar wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:42 pm As a personal experience, I can tell you that while doing genealogy, a couple of late relatives (died in the middle of the 20th century) communicated with me because of their difficult life fates. In another case, I found an old photo of my relative online as a result of communication. I wasn't trying to contact these dead relatives of mine, I was looking for concrete information about them for genealogical research. I don't consider myself a medium, although I sometimes communicate with the dead. What is the reason that there is such a negative attitude towards mediumism here on the forum? However, communication with deities or other spirits is not reacted the same way? Isn't that also some form of mediumism, to be in contact with deities or other spirits? Or are you using term mediumism to mean possession like in old fashioned spiritism? I think an empathetic approach to the ghosts left in the between would be appropriate and a certain respect for the dead.
The Theosophical critique is two-part, as I see it. First there is the mixing of the skandhas which connects to the intuition, understanding the macabre puppet dance to be an act of disturbing the dead. The dead shells, which the medium effectively plays with, are said to be waiting for their spirit to return from its higher realms in reincarnation, and to mess with this shell is to mess with its karmic particles - skandhas. If this language and terminology seems awfully specific and imaginary, one can return to the simple question: How questionable, to say the least, it is to have intimate relations with things that are not able to give their consent? And more so when we speak of things that are not ours to hassle with (the latest episode on death and mortification, Serpent & the Star podcast touched this aspect of the problem briefly). Thus when we approach goetic magic, I think it can remain within good ethical conduct when we are doing it within the limits that are ours to work with. This is typically our own being. When we are approaching entites through theurgy we are calling much higher spirits than ourselves and they may move a finger to our call if the so Will, so it seems to be within the limits of consent.
I am interested whether mediumism could be seen within ethical bounds in its less macabre ways. For example, there are institutes that train mediumism and some wield these capacities to solely heal people. What do you think? This brings us to the second part of Blavatsky's critique. According to her, the spiritual path of occultism is shut from those who train themselves mediumism, driving themselves in to disintegration rather than integration as a complete Human Being. This comes back to the 2nd point in the numbered points above.
It is good to remember that Blavatsky's critique comes from personal experience, and the roots of Theosophical Society lies in mediumistic circles, where it seemed to became apparent to the seeding occultists, that certain ways of working does not support the aims of reaching in to the occult. Thus Theosophical Society separated in to its own direction emphasising occultism.